Supreme Court

Oh, Ed. Glad you got here so soon. Got here as soon as I can make it. This is Ed Hunter, our lawyer. I meet Frank Wilkins. He's chairman of the employers committee that worked out this new employment plan. Glad to know you, Wilkins. What plan? The plan the state labor board says is illegal. I told you on the form. Oh yes. I suppose you give me a little of the detail. Well, that's easy. You see, um, ours is a seasonal business. Good in summer, bad in winter. In the past, we hired extra help during the summer only to let them go in the fall. I see. Trouble was, the men never had any security. So, we elected a committee to figure out a plan that would give us yearround work. Under this new plan, I agreed to keep an average number of men on the payroll all year round and guarantee them a definite number of hours of work a year. In return, we agreed to work that number of hours at the basic hourly rate, even though at times it would amount to 12 hours a day. In this way, we don't have to train a lot of new men just to let them go in a few months. And we know where we stand. But now you're in trouble with the state labor board. They say that even with this agreement, I still have to pay time and a half for everything over 8 hours a day. That once the state starts making exceptions, there's no stopping it. Naturally, the men believe in overtime as a general thing, but in this case, it's to our advantage to have yearround employment. What I want to know is, can they make it stick? I don't know yet. But if we want to fight, it's likely to go up to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court? How does the Supreme Court come into this? Well, conflicts between private contracts and state laws involve a constitutional issue for the Supreme Court. Why doesn't the state legislature or Congress for that matter find out whether a law will be constitutional before they pass it? Usually they do seek legal advice in drafting legislation, but the function of the Supreme Court is to decide specific cases and not to give general advisory opinions. All right about the Supreme Court, but what do I do now? Nothing yet. I'll call you in a few days as soon as I can decide if you have a case. All right. Hello, Brown. I've been reading law in your case. One leading case upholds general hour restriction laws both as a wage and as a health measure. Another leading case says that they can't be generally adopted. There must be a special reason. So I think you have a good chance if you want to fight this case. I want to fight. All right. Then go ahead with your plan and leave the next move up to the state labor board. That's right. We're going ahead just as we agreed. We'll work as much as 12 hours a day. All at straight time, you understand? No overtime. We'll make up for it with time off next winter. [Music] All right, I've got a summon from the state labor board. Now, let's take it up with the Supreme Court. Oh, not so fast. You see, the Supreme Court is very careful about the kind of cases it will hear. Careful? How do you mean careful? Well, the Constitution limits the kinds of cases which may appear originally before the Supreme Court. Its original jurisdiction includes only cases involving ambassadors, councils, and other public ministers and cases in which a state is a party. The majority come to it by appeal from federal circuit courts of appeal. Others come by appeal from the highest court of a state. You mean the federal government and the states have duplicate systems of courts overlapping to some extent but not duplicate? You can see here that the country is divided into 10 federal court districts. In general, cases under federal law or involving citizens of different states are tried in the federal courts and cases under state law are tried in state courts. But in practice, the division is not always so simple. In this case, for instance, you will be prosecuted under a state law, but your defense will invoke the federal constitution. If the highest state court refuses to recognize this defense, we can then appeal to the Supreme Court. That is, if we want to fight the last ditch, you bet we want to fight. State court, federal court, wherever we have to go, we're going to fight for our rights. decision for the state appeal. That's where we stand today. We've appealed the judgment of the lower court has been sustained. But we believe we're right. We've decided to go ahead and our case is now waiting to be heard by the state supreme court. We're going to stick with it to the end. Good. That my client has complied with the spirit of the law and that the arbitrary action of the state labor board cannot be justified by the public interest. Turn down again. We all thought our agreement was such a simple thing. Our only hope now is the United States Supreme Court. Oh, what's the use? These other courts say I'm not within my rights. I guess I'm not. But remember, they don't have the final say. One of the chief functions of the Supreme Court is to guard our constitutional rights against encroachment by state or federal legislation. Maybe so. But uh say you've been telling these judges about the New York bakery case. That time the Supreme Court ruled against a state labor board. Yes, but remember I also told them about a competing doctrine arising out of an Oregon case which was upheld by the Supreme Court. You mean the Supreme Court doesn't stick to its earlier decisions? In identical cases, it usually does. However, as the years pass, the thinking of the court may change. in accordance with the development of economic and social thought. So, in the last analysis, our case, well, any case, must stand on its own merits. I still think I'm right. Let's get this thing settled. All right, I'll start on the petition right away. Since the outcome of this decision will affect each one of you, Mr. Brown has asked me to explain to you just what has happened and what will happen now. Some time ago, our appeal was granted and I filed a brief setting forth our arguments in our case against the state labor board. The board filed a reply brief and in due time we were called to Washington where both arguments were made orally before the court. Now we've presented our case and we'll await the decision. Each justice will consider independently the briefs and oral arguments of both sides and will make any additional study he may consider pertinent. Then they will meet to discuss the case and to try to arrive at a unanimous decision. Failing that, the case will be decided by a vote. A simple majority suffices for a decision. The chief justice then assigns one of the majority justices the writing of the opinion of the court. If one of them while agreeing about the disposition of the case arrives at his conclusions from different reasons, he may write a concurring opinion. Those justices who disagree with the court's opinion may collaborate on a dissenting opinion or they may file several opinions giving different reasons. All the opinions are important because they explain the principles of the law applied and serve as guides in any future cases of a similar or slightly different nature. Mr. Hunter? Yes. Do you think we'll win? That's hard to say. I'm confident we have a good chance, but whatever decision the court makes, that will be the final interpretation of the law. There is no further appeal because this is the highest court of law and in a democracy law must be supreme. [Music]